The progressives of the Constitutional Court endorse the reform of the Judiciary by rejecting the appeals of PP and Vox

The Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court, with a progressive majority, has rejected the unconstitutionality appeals presented by the Popular Party and Vox against the reform of the Judiciary, approved by the PSOE Government and Unidas Podemos in 2021 to try to unblock the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ)sources from the court of guarantees have reported.

The judges of the conservative sector Ricardo Enríquez, Enrique Arnaldo, César Tolosa and Concepción Espejel have announced that they will cast a dissenting vote against the resolution. The Plenary has supported the presentation of the progressive magistrate María Luisa Balaguer, contrary to that presented by the conservative César Tolosa, who has finally declined her presentation.

It may interest you: The nightclubs where 13 people died in Murcia had a closure order from 2022: “We are going to act”

The reform approved by the coalition government was made with the intention of forcing the PP to renew the Council and prevents the CGPJ from making appointments when its mandate has expired, as is currently the case with a Council that has now been in office for five years with only 16 of its members. However, the popular ones did not change their position.

Furthermore, the reform caused a incessant drip of pending appointments in the Supreme Court and the higher courts of justice, which has generated deep discomfort in the judiciary. In total there are 83 vacancies that remain to be filled in the judicial leadership, 23 of them in the Supreme Court, which has been warning for some time of the risk of collapse due to a situation that they describe as unsustainable.

It may interest you: Putellas, Paredes and Misa confirm before the judge that Rubiales and other senior officials of the RFEF coerced Jenni Hermoso after the kiss

The ruling affirms that the Constitution only determines, in a clear and univocal manner, that the duration of the mandate of the members of the CGPJ is five years, a period in which they are in the full exercise of their powers, and it cannot be deduced from this provision the prohibition of the legislator from limiting functions when the period referred to in article 122 is exceeded.

Explains that the powers of the CGPJ in office must be subject to strict limits that prevent this body, in a situation of extension due to the concurrence of a circumstance of institutional anomaly, from compromising the future decision-making capacity of the government of the judiciary, where the decisions to be adopted have a high degree of discretion and a low content of mere administrative management.

For its part, the conservative bloc considers that the unconstitutionality of the reform should have been declared due to the violation of article 122.2, understanding that it deprives the Council in functions of essential powers for the fulfillment of its constitutional mission.

The conservatives point out that without a doubt the Constitution orders that the renewal of the Council takes place every five years, but the failure by the Cortes of this constitutional duty does not enable the legislator to deprive the Council of its functions as the governing body of the power of attorney.

News prepared with information from EFE